Binge drinking is out of control in the UK. Take a walk down any village, town or city in the UK at the weekend and the streets are a mass of violence, vandalism, urination, disturbance and alcohol poisoning. Both the police and the health services are heavily stretched during these periods. This has
all been much documented in the UK; and the behaviour is even spreading rapidly into the female population. It seems the 16-35 yo British population cant be trusted to control their own alcoholic consumption.

I propose that a suitable chemical or bacteria is added into publicly served drinks proportional to the level alcoholic content. The idea being, that should the concentration of alcohol in the gut go beyond a certain level, then vomiting is induced. The level would need to set somewhere between happily drunk and mindless violence. Effectively this system would induce vomiting a couple of drinks ahead of its natural occurrence anyway - but missing out the unnecessary violent component in-between.

I find drunk people quite hilarious. They're a fine source of street entertainment. Just the other day i was walking home at about midnight, and a drunk tried to ride on a bicycle that had no wheels, no seat, and was chained to a drain-pipe. If anything, we need more of this.

Ah, a Daily Mail reader surfaces! There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to count, but I'll have a go:1)Scare-mongering hyperbole. Many places in the UK are not awash with "violence... ,urination" etc2)One size fits all crudity that assumes all people get drunk at the same rate - your Ninny state additive would cause some people to hurl whilst still happily merry3)Assumption that only the younger elements of society have a problem with alcohol4)Assumption that drink invariably leads to violence. Neither I nor anyone I choose to associate with poses any threat to anyone whilst piddled and we've been falling-down drunk our fair share of times. Moreover, I've never once called on the services of the Constabulary or the NHS, despite a number of blissful incidents involving roofs, windows, running into walls, setting things (and people) on fire etc.

In conclusion: bad idea based on bad information. Whilst nobody would deny that many people have a problem with their drink, a solution as clumsy as this which punishes the responsible as well as the scum is not the answer. A big, vomit-covered fish for you!

My contention would be that this possible solution avoids punishing the majority of responsible drunkards.

A number of regional authorities are attempting to remove cheap drinks, as well as implementing draconian licensing laws. This is punishing the many for the sins of the few. In my proposal, (and I expected to be fish boned because I was assuming that an irritant could be found that once expelled would require no medical attention) only those binging, i.e. where the alcoholic content reached a certain concentration level, would feel the result.

Im also assuming that someone who would have a weaker disposition to my proposed stomach irritant would also have weaker tolerance to alcholol (it is at least logical)

The reality is that we will all end up paying for more expensive drinks in some truly half-baked council prohibition legislation. If you read the broadsheets, you would be aware this is already happening.

If this miracle irritant could indeed be found, I guess it would also have uses for stopping any orally administered overdoses too. But would we want the nanny state interfering with our carefully planned suicides?

At the risk of selectively quoting:
//There are so many things wrong with this.....Assumption that drink invariably leads to violence.....despite a number of blissful incidents involving.....setting things (and people) on fire etc//

You set people on fire, but that's ok because it's not violent?!?!? Circumstances may be other than the picture I have in my mind, but you are the very person I don't want drunk and near me :-)

//My contention would be that this possible solution avoids punishing the majority of responsible drunkards.//
Then it's just as silly as the original idea I'm afraid. The central fallacy being that it is impossible to drink to excess without becoming violent/a social parasite. This is ridiculous, as pointed out by myself and [britboy] above. I don't see any logic in the idea that tolerance to alcohol would align neatly with tolerance to your irritant, but I guess it's hard to tell since the irritant is currently in the WIBN/magic category. In short, it's still a bad idea and reliant on a magic ingredient for the booze. Well-intentioned I'm sure, but not the answer.

Ah yes [wags] was waiting for someone to take me to task on that :). The point I was trying to make is that it's possible to handle potentially dangerous things like flame, heights, obstacles etc whilst intoxicated and not come to harm or harm anyone else but I can see why you'd be nervous.

The most recent flame incident was to light a friend's t-shirt (we were making him a zombie Halloween costume and wanted some burn effects). His left nipple was a little singed since we left the flames to that critical point where blowing on them makes them bigger and he had to flap his arms around to put them out but we all had a great time at the party.

The point is people do behave stupidly when drunk, but many are capable of doing so in a responsible fashion with no need for medical assistance or policing. If I want to peacefully down 4 bottles of wine and set my friends on fire is there really any reason why I shouldn't, obvious liver concerns aside?:)

[DocBrown] - No there isn't. The point is that some drunken people are an antisocial pain up the arse, sometimes worse, and we have to try and stop them without preventing others from having a bit of fun. I favour community wardens armed with tranquillizer guns. Anyone gets out of hand, put them to sleep for twelve hours.

Of course this just addresses the Saturday-night-on-the-town crowd, but there are far more sinister problems that alcohol brings with it which you don't see - domestic violence being the most obvious. In my experience this is where the real damage is done: vandalism, urination, disturbance and alchohol poisoning are only midly irritating by comparison. I would love to halfbake a contraption to deal with these ills, but I'm a long way from it. And no, I don't really think that chemically limiting the nation's intake is a solution.

//the behaviour is even spreading rapidly into the female population.// That should read "the behaviour is even spreading rapidly FROM the female population" since it's far more of a problem amongst girls than boys. Do your research.

//It seems the 16-35 yo British population can?t be trusted to control their own alcoholic consumption.// Sod you too.

It seems the 35-70 year old British population can't be trusted to control their opinions. I suggest we force feed them laxatives.